http://fortressat.com/ Sat, 25 May 2013 20:07:26 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3390 Shellhead wrote: [i]As for the licensing issue, going generic shouldn't be a dealbreaker. It will even free you up to add your own ideas without restriction. You should be able to easily do a pulp alien civilization on a dying world without relying on just the John Carter material.[/i] Or maybe if you're lucky you could talk Disney into publishing your game in association with whatever project they have cooked up for the material. Yeah, it's a real longshot. But who knows...... BillN BigLizard Thu, 22 May 2008 00:00:46 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3383 I agree that 8 traits is excessive. It would be easy to compress those four different leadership traits into a single attribute. Big Lizard is right, you can put the flavor back in by giving various characters different special abilities or at least modifiers to certain types of leadership challenges. Think in terms of keywords instead of stats for leadership. As for the licensing issue, going generic shouldn't be a dealbreaker. It will even free you up to add your own ideas without restriction. You should be able to easily do a pulp alien civilization on a dying world without relying on just the John Carter material. Sometimes I regret tying my only published game to an established license, because that meant that we never controlled the development and had to accept changes without hesitation. Shellhead Wed, 21 May 2008 02:01:16 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3382 God damn it Disney. Fuck. So I can't use any of the specifics of the source material - not even place names? Well, that's going to put this on hold for a bit as the entire concept has been based around ERB's Mars books. I would like to continue with the themes of the books at least, but now I'm unsure as to how to go about using them. As for players, the whole game is meant to be multi-player, probably up to 5 or 6 players. The number of characters in each persons control would be something like 3 plus the number of cities controlled. Now I have to work out re-theming the entire game and am a bit disappointed. Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone. Count Orlok Wed, 21 May 2008 00:17:25 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3381 I reread your ideas again and really like the whole concept so far. Even if the Barsoom theme doesn't work out legally, I'd like to see something like it in action. BillN BigLizard Tue, 20 May 2008 22:40:08 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3380 Some nice ideas, though. I really like the city decay. Would it be possible to make a jump to multiplayer? Especially if the green martians were controlled by a third player. Adding a third player changes battle games in spectacularly dramatic ways. Suddenly, you have an entire diplomatic layer imbedded in the game that you pretty much get for free. Not always good of course. moofrank Tue, 20 May 2008 16:43:30 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3379 What Phil Reed said: I did a couple of minutes of research. The books ARE in the public domain--put Disney acquired all of the related Trademarks, because Pixar is working on a movie. Which means you can use the plots--just without making references to John Carter, Warlord of Mars, Barsoom..... Even if you publish it for free online, I'm sure a squad of Disney attack lawyers would send off a salvo of takedown notices within a few days once they notice you. moofrank Tue, 20 May 2008 16:38:24 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3378 Looks like an interesting concept. I like the idea of the card pools, but I'd have to agree with one of the other authors in that there should be a variable resource pool to add an element of uncertainty to the game. mikoyan Tue, 20 May 2008 15:58:38 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3376 I agree that 8 traits is too many. I like BigLizard's idea of less traits, more individualized character skills. Also, the rules for the cities seems a bit fiddly. I do like the idea of depleting resources though. metalface13 Tue, 20 May 2008 15:55:14 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3374 I like the idea. Pulp is sorely under represented in boardgames (and RPG's for that matter.) I would consider changing the success rate from 1/3 to 1/2 (or even 2/3.) Since your dice pools are relatively small you're going to end up with a lot of ties which may stall the game. The higher the success rate the greater chance you'll have a clear resolution in conflict. Steve"Playtester"Avery Stephen Avery Tue, 20 May 2008 15:47:45 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3367 Hmmm....the blog doesn't like symbols. After "basic leadership" it should read (plus 1, plus 2, etc.) only with symbols instead of the word "plus." BigLizard Tue, 20 May 2008 05:14:47 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3366 If you decide on cutting down the number of characteristics, you may try cutting out some of the universal character stats but then give each character a special ability that in some way reflects one (or more) of the removed characteristics. Say you removed all four leadership traits (as an extreme example), assumed all characters had the same base leadership skills, and then gave some characters a bonus for basic leadership (e.g., 1. 2, etc.), other characters a bonus for combat leadership, still other characters a bonus for cunning, etc. Some characters that are weak in one leadership category might get an extra bonus in a second leadership category just to keep things somewhat balanced. What I'm thinking is how in the game Runebound characters are given stats in three basic areas, then characters are further distinguished by special abilities that are relevant to different aspects of the game. Its one way the different characters receive "flavor" specific to the type of character. For example, the thief-like character gets bonuses for sneaking and hiding. Great idea for a blog. I've already picked up an idea to use in my own endeavour, an AT farming game that is nothing like Agricola. BillN BigLizard Tue, 20 May 2008 05:10:05 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3350 As far as I know the first five books have had their copyrights lapse, but I think the latter books still hold onto them. I have no idea how I would go about checking that of course. I really have no idea how to look into that though. As for the character stats, I agree and yet disagree. I want to have a large number of stats in order to make characters as asymmetrical as possible, but I also don't want them to be too complicated. The idea is to have very few characters that good in many things, and really allow each character to have a few special actions that they really excel at. I guess I need to create more characters and find out. Count Orlok Mon, 19 May 2008 20:36:04 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3349 Are you sure about the copyright status of the John Carter books? The last I heard someone owned those and was defending those rights. You may want to put some legal time into the matter before sinking too many resources into the game idea. philreed Mon, 19 May 2008 19:06:23 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3345 Ah, one more thing. Sorry for all these separate comments... stream of consciousness. You will want to think carefully about how many characteristics are really necessary for your character cards. 8 is relatively high. I might keep forgetting which is which, even with good card design. Finding a balance between keeping each character unique and their characteristics flavorful vs. making it simple enough to evaluate their value and make them flexible enough is going to be critical. Gary Sax Mon, 19 May 2008 17:21:53 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3344 The euro part of my comment is just to say that the euro approach to the deck in my opinion would be that you would be sure exactly which cards you would see each game, just not when. So it would lend a predictability to the game that might make it easier to balance and would appeal to some people. For me, though, even if it's just a few cards, I like to see a variable deck where I get thrown surprises. You also couldn't just sit on your ass and wait for a savior to come down to counter a specific card, for example, you'd need to make sure you had other plans to scrape by. Also, from a practical perspective, it gives a nice way to expand the game if this ever gets produced--you could sell more event decks and either just play them, mix them, etc. A lot like the Arkham horror expansions. I don't think the game sounds too euro in general, honestly. The tight, declining resources is a little bit but probably in a good way. But it sounds like a direct conflict type game which is far from a lot of the multiplayer solitaire I associate most euros with. Gary Sax Mon, 19 May 2008 17:18:31 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3343 Thanks for the comments. So with the resource deck, you think it would be a good idea to have the cards within the deck change with each game - so, each game it would help to have a certain number of (hidden) cards removed? I like it. It would certainly keep everyone on their toes. So does this seem too "euro"? Not at all my intention, but I am curious as to everyones thoughts. Count Orlok Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:12 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3342 One more thing. I love the Green Martian thing. Having the system building up against you and raiding while you try to fend off the enemy is a great mechanic IMO. Gary Sax Mon, 19 May 2008 17:06:17 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299#josc3341 One thing that strikes me is the resource deck. If it's going to be the main driver of the game w/what comes up, it definitely needs to be different each game IMHO. I don't know if this is what you have in mind, but I see the resource deck as being some subset, depending on number of players, of the full resource cards in the box with the game. Again, I think this is what you have in mind, but it strikes me as critical so it doesn't feel like a Euro and you have a different game every time (i.e. sometimes John Carter never comes out). The deck setup reminds me of Starcraft... the one thing that bothers me about starcraft is the lack of variety in the combat deck. I see your other deck with actions and stuff having much more variety and character than something like Starcraft which just determines units abilities (and sometimes tech). Gary Sax Mon, 19 May 2008 17:04:27 +0100